Appeal Against Acquittal Standard: interference is limited to perverse findings, and conflicting forensic evidence can defeat a single-shot theory.

In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse, illegal, or leads to grave miscarriage of justice; a mere alternative view is insufficient. Applying that standard, the SC held that the trial court's acquittal was a plausible view and should not have been reversed. On the evidence, the prosecution also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a single shot caused both the fatal injury and the pellet injuries, as the medical and ballistic evidence indicated different shots from different firearms. The conviction set aside by the High Court was therefore unsustainable and the acquittal was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal in an appeal against acquittal; (ii) Whether the evidence established that a single shot caused both the fatal injury to the deceased and the pellet injuries to the injured witness.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal in an appeal against acquittal.

Analysis: The appellate court has full power to reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but that power must be exercised with great care and caution. The presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal, and if the trial court's view is reasonable and plausible, interference is warranted only for very substantial and compelling reasons, such as perversity, manifest illegality, misreading of evidence, or grave miscarriage of justice. A mere possible different view is not enough to disturb an acquittal.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in setting aside the acquittal; the trial court's view was a plausible one and deserved to be restored.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence established that a single shot caused both the fatal injury to the deceased and the pellet injuries to the injured witness.

Analysis: The medical evidence and the ballistic expert's report showed that the deceased sustained a bullet injury while the injured witness sustained pellet injuries, and the expert opined that these injuries were caused by different shots from different firearms. The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that villagers would not distinguish between bullet and pellet injuries, and held that the prosecution version of a single shot was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove that a single shot caused both sets of injuries; the defence version was more probable.

Final Conclusion: The conviction recorded by the High Court could not stand, and the acquittal recorded by the trial court was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only when the trial court's view is perverse or otherwise unsustainable; where two reasonable views are possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail.

---